Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it’s that we may stop producing people who know enough to notice when AI is confidently wrong. The running-joke is that a LinkedIn-lunatic AI booster, with a Nano Banana-generated profile-pic, will immediately slide into the chat to tell you that that this is already a solved problem: just spin up another agent to do the work to verify the first agent. Token-cost-be-damned. And we laugh and downvote them to oblivio…
> any time any agent confidently asserts something then it has to provide associated evidence And this is enforced by... another LLM? Seems like it would work alright until something is asserted implicitly and not categorized as an assertion.
Automation Without Understanding
51–60 of 64 posts
Re: Automation Without Understanding
#52See also Bill Thurston’s classic Math Overflow answer to a student wondering where they fit compared to a Gauss or Euler: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/43690/whats-a-mathematici... “The product of mathematics is clarity and understanding. Not theorems, by themselves. [Their importance is not just in their specific statements], but their role in challenging our understanding, presenting challenges that led to mat…
Curious to see if that can map to what's happening in the software industry/community. > The product of software engineering (or computer science) is clarity and understanding. Not programs, by themselves. Their importance is not just in their specific statements (lines of code in a specific language), but their role in challenging our understanding, presenting challenges that led to computational (?) developments th…
The industry demonstrates that in practice, typically, it doesn’t agree with this. “Get the program working” is goal 1, and everything after that is optional, depending on the environment.
Re: Automation Without Understanding
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does happen. But this is why the “ralph loop” works: over dozens (or hundreds) of iterations, eventually every regression, implicit assumption, fake passing test, is noticed and fixed by another agent. The code slowly but continuously converges to a better state. I’m surprised myself, but haven’t seen it fall into chaos or degradation so far.
I haven't seen a code base which hasn't fallen into degradation from that loop. From personal experience, any "correction" leads to an LLM writing more code, or stripping apart interfaces and mixing logic poorly, or adding some hidden control flow just to catch that edge case rather than the general case for that category of input.
Re: Automation Without Understanding
#54What worries me isn’t AI replacing experts, it’s that we may stop producing people who know enough to notice when AI is confidently wrong.
Re: Automation Without Understanding
#55What worries me isn’t AI replacing experts, it’s that we may stop producing people who know enough to notice when AI is confidently wrong.
Re: Automation Without Understanding
#56What worries me isn’t AI replacing experts, it’s that we may stop producing people who know enough to notice when AI is confidently wrong.
> it’s that we may stop producing people who know enough to notice when AI is confidently wrong. The running-joke is that a LinkedIn-lunatic AI booster, with a Nano Banana-generated profile-pic, will immediately slide into the chat to tell you that that this is already a solved problem: just spin up another agent to do the work to verify the first agent. Token-cost-be-damned. And we laugh and downvote them to oblivio…
It taking "a few weeks" of wall-clock runtime suggests to me that it's making a lot of mistakes that keep needing correction, you're seeing the output after it fixes them. FWIW, my experience with them includes just enough fragile self-made unit tests to be a problem for entirely hands-off work, despite what it gets right.
However, on the topic of time rather than quality: Last summer I decided to convert an old game from C++/SDL2 to JS/WebGL, and was doing that with manual copying each function one at a time to ChatGPT and then code reviewing each line by hand. The wall-clock speedup from proper agentic coding that has come since then, is so much much faster than me working like this, that the modern approach would have been done in less than a week if it had managed without making mistakes.
I might go back to that project. While I was enjoying the process of code archeology (the code being a mix of many platforms starting with 68k era classic MacOS software rendering and resource forks upwards), I had to focus on other things for a bit in the meanwhile, which is of course the actual benefit of code factories.
Re: Automation Without Understanding
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
> any time any agent confidently asserts something then it has to provide associated evidence And this is enforced by... another LLM? Seems like it would work alright until something is asserted implicitly and not categorized as an assertion.
But doesn't things like that happen with people? Take academy where some professor implicitly states "facts" or military or software development where some highly praised senior always has his last word...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disas...
Re: Automation Without Understanding
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
You both seem to be using a different definition of "singularity" from the one I'm familiar with. I've always understood it to mean a rapid feedback loop in which AI creates successive, increasingly capable generations of AI outside human control, rather than simply a level of technological advancement that would be incomprehensible to someone
The reason the term "singularity" was used when that term was coined was in analogy to a black hole, which has a point on its radius called the event horizon where the gravitational pull is strong enough to stop light from escaping, thereby making it impossible to see beyond that horizon. "Technological singularity" itself here refers to the technological event which causes this, like a black hole is sometimes explai…
To expand on this, I prefer calling this "the event horizon" rather than "the singularity", as that makes it clear (I hope) that I mean "can't predict" rather than "goes to infinity".
With this framing, my prediction for that horizon has been "around 2030" for over a decade now, as several different currently-exponential growth trends start giving results with weird implications around that year.
(LLMs look like they're ahead of schedule for this, but consider their power requirements and limitations on AI in robotics that mean they're not quite good enough on the "G" part of "AGI" to affect non-desk jobs).
Re: Automation Without Understanding
#59> "the essay makes the case for treating mathematical capacity as a strategic asset on a par with semiconductor capability." In other words, the mathematicians want more funding.
And the Chinese are still going to kick our ass. Ancaps are in for a major cope and seethe when they are forced to admit that the communists won the cold war.
Re: Automation Without Understanding
#60If you observe most policies to come from authority, you might not feel the loss of your own capabilities as much. Most people who are subjected to rules of law, bureaucracy, politics, or religion, might see these rules as arbitrary.
If you think of the way math gets taught in a this-is-right-everything-else-is-wrong way, it will evoke the same feeling of arbitrary authority. Playing around and exploring math is usually only sometimes taught to children from academic/STEM families. So why would someone mourn the loss of capability for mathematical reasoning in people, if they only experienced it as following something incomprehensible anyway.